Discourse and Discussion - Cap/Com

[Arrian]

I see nothing wrong, nor particularly unpopular, with mixing incentives with regulations (carrot & stick) to get the desired result of less pollution w/o undue economic impact.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Well like I said. I need a subsidy for not buying that Hummer.

[Odin]

You can't compare a Hopi tribe with a modern state. Comnunal behavior IS natural to humanity, but the problem is that because humans lived in tiny groups until 10,000 years ago, we have only evolved to deal with a few hundred people or less. As we can see in history, as groups became larger, they came to rely more and more on the village elders to mediate conflicts and redistribute the harvest evenly. These "elders" eventually became a ruling class and redistribution became taxation. The dificulties in modern economics and politics deal with reconciling human nature and the reality of living with lots of people you don't know.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
I see nothing wrong, nor particularly unpopular, with mixing incentives with regulations (carrot & stick) to get the desired result of less pollution w/o undue economic impact.

-Arrian

Arrian and I come to the same conclusion from the opposite sides of the proverbial fence. I from an industry backgorund (and pro-industry obviously) and Arrian from an enforcement adjudication perspective. A mix IS required. IMHO, to date, however, the regulatory mindset has been primarily heavy on the stick towards industry with little to no carrot, with pro-indsutry lobby groups carving out exemptions for specific industries.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Well like I said. I need a subsidy for not buying that Hummer.

You got it. Your subsidy is lack of a $50000 loan and annual gasoline expenses of $2500 annually.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe



Arrian and I come to the same conclusion from the opposite sides of the proverbial fence. I from an industry backgorund (and pro-industry obviously) and Arrian from an enforcement adjudication perspective. A mix IS required. IMHO, to date, however, the regulatory mindset has been primarily heavy on the stick towards industry with little to no carrot, with pro-indsutry lobby groups carving out exemptions for specific industries.

Clarification: I work for an insurance company, handling long-tail environmental claims. We're neutral, I'd say, with regard to the regulation/incentive issue.

The insurance side of this has to do with the courts' interpretations of insurance contacts vis-a-vis environmental cleanups (i.e. rulings on the various pollution exclusions, is environmental damage caused by dribs and drabs over decades an "accident" etc).

EDIT:

What this experience has done for me is give me an idea of what the contamination situation is like and show me that no matter how we structure the law, the people of the USofA end up paying for all of this anyway.

People get all fired up about "making polluters pay!" Ultimately, however, polluters often turn out to be mom & pop businesses, or major employers... or long out of business (and that doesn't even get into the consumer themselves polluting). Money for cleanups ends up coming in a mixture from the government, any remaining still-solvent PRPs (potentially responsible parties) and their insurers. Government = people (taxes). Insurers = people who carrying insurance = nearly everyone (higher premiums). And companies don't exist in a vaccum either.

Thus, in the end, the cost ends up back on the taxpayer ANYWAY. I'm looking for proactive solutions to reduce the cost overall, rather than doing battle for some notion of justice.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Well like I said. I need a subsidy for not buying that Hummer.

If we wish to encourage behavior without going so far as to simply outlaw that which we don't like (in this case, gas guzzlers), yes.

-Arrian

[Lawrence of Arabia]

http://classes.maxwell.syr.edu/ppa777/lectures/envlct23.html

Carbon Tax this is an interesting idea.

to summarize

using RICE and DICE climactic models, we can tax at two levels $5/ton of carbon emissions or $100/ ton of carbon emissions. products that emit more will have higher taxes.

at $5/ton
coal : $3.5/ton (10% of price)
oil: $0.58/barrel (1.75% of price)
gas: $0.014/gallon (0.8% of price)

at $10/ ton
coal: $70/ton (200% of price)
oil: $11.65/barrel (35% of price)
gas: $0.28/gallon (15.7% of price)

the total cost? when marginal costs = marginal benefits (optimal)

2005: $9.13
2025: $16.72
2095: $59.20

(these are tax/ton)

the amount of reduction would be

2005: 4.8%
2025: 6.2%
2095: 10.5%

[Odin]

Coal:
Oil:
Natural Gas:
Biofuels:
Fuel Cells:
Nuclear Fusion:

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You are when you aren't being a capitalist.

You catch more bugs with honey than vinagar, comrade. If we can't be civil before the revolution, how can anyone trust us to be civil when we are in charge. Remember Comrade Lenin's comment about Stalin being too rude. Look how he ended up.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Is what you say real? I don't think so.

Very real. Consider. To drill an offshore oil well you need to do an environmental assessment. The "environment" has become an industry all onto itself and environmental compliance companies do quite well.

Originally posted by Kidicious


Polution is at an very unacceptable level, and we have trouble with the economy.

I agree that pollution is at unacceptable levels and the United States is having trouble with its economy . Canada's economy is doing ok. I just reject that there is NECESSARILY a direct correlation between pollution and economic growth. Obviously there has been such a linkage as companies industrialized and we therefore expect even more pollution from India China etc as they modernize .. .But imagine if I invented a cheap $100 doohickey that could cut all car emissions by half. The result might be that Alberta pollution stayed the same but our economy grew from selling 20 million units to California. In California, pollution drops sharply even though the economy may be skyrocketing.

NOT all industries are major polluters and the US could curb pollution by major amounts if the consumers would end their love affairs with the big SUVs.

[Arrian]

There is a chance that stricter environmental controls and/or more incentive for less pollution might result in boosted efficiency or breakthrough inventions.

But in general, internalizing the cost of pollution will impact corporate profits somewhat. Then again, I think it's entirely possible that by forcing/encouraging companies to internalize those costs now, they may save in the long run because they won't have a multi-gazillion dollar cleanup to deal with in 40 years, with class action BI suits up the yingyang.

The cost of pollution is dealt with one way or another by society. It's just that we've mostly been doing it bassackwards: allowing lots of pollution and then dealing with it after it's spread and caused all sorts of havoc.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

The problem with all of this is companies could just move their production overseas to [insert 3rd world ****hole here].

...

How do we deal with that, by the way, short of world-wide pollution (and worker safety, etc) regulations?

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


You got it. Your subsidy is lack of a $50000 loan and annual gasoline expenses of $2500 annually.

\

How about if I don't dump my trash in your yard and you can pay me for that? You should find that fair.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You catch more bugs with honey than vinagar, comrade. If we can't be civil before the revolution, how can anyone trust us to be civil when we are in charge. Remember Comrade Lenin's comment about Stalin being too rude. Look how he ended up.

This isn't catching bugs. It's war. We have to know who the enemy is.